Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction

By Chieko Fukuda. 2010

2,018 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0b24a95c3306ea50a117cf9c5a04a6ab28fb0193

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization (2012, background): “This idea enters, in different modulations, into the foundation for various linguistic and nonlinguistic theories—for instance, Sperber and Wilson’s (1995) relevance theory, Langacker’s COGNITIVE GRAMMAR (cf. Langacker 2008:12), and Bundesen’s (1990) theory of visual attention.”
L2 effects on L1 event conceptualization* (2010, methodology): “…theories, including cognitive semantics (e.g., Talmy, 2000), cognitive grammar (e.g., Langacker, 1987), metaphor theory (e.g., Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), mental space theory (e.g., Fauconnier, 1985), construction grammar (e.g., Fillmore, 1988) and many others (see, e.g., Langacker, 2008, p. 7).”
Conceptual transfer: Crosslinguistic effects in categorization and construal* (2010, methodology): “…vary broadly, what unites them is their grounding in an overarching cognitive framework that views language use as being governed not just by wellformedness constraints, but also by more basic cognitive systems and abilities, including perception, memory and categorization (Langacker, 2008, p. 8).”
Universal Conceptual Cognitive Annotation (UCCA) (2013, background): “Second, from a theoretical point of view, UCCA differs from these works in aiming to represent conceptual semantics, building on works in Cognitive Linguistics (e.g., (Langacker, 2008)).”
Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality (2015, background): “Notably, linguistic theories of grammar (Cristofaro, 2003; Givón, 2009; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Langacker, 2008) count both finite and non-finite clauses as clauses.”
The relevance of emotion for language and linguistics (2012, background): “How strong the latter relation holds, is a question that dominates discussions concerning research in linguistic relativity, see, for example, Slobin (1996), Pinker (1997), Majid et al. (2004), and Casasanto (2008).”